4 ms·
seems they planning to replace it but overall now I'm really confused about this and mlx and coremltools. They should do better work explaining the benefits (an
by pzo 4mo ago
seems they planning to replace it but overall now I'm really confused about this and mlx and coremltools. They should do better work explaining the benefits (and cons) of it and any feature parity between coreai, coreml and mlx.
- LoganDark 4mo agoMy reading of it is: - Core ML is for models designed only for Apple platforms - MLX is for models that don't need to be fast - Core AI is for models that run everywhere already and also need to be fast
- wahnfrieden 4mo agoI use CoreML for models designed for other platforms. I port the models to it but it works for that without much trouble. MLX is not for end user deployment.
- jkman 4mo agoThis view is a bit off. First, keep in mind that MLX was and will not be able to access the ANE, so it's a total non-starter for anything user-facing. Based on updates to coreml docs, they're trying to sell CoreML as the tool for tabular or domain-specific applications and CoreAI for NNs moving forward.
- LoganDark 4mo ago> keep in mind that MLX was and will not be able to access the ANE That's the rationale behind it not being fast. > so it's a total non-starter for anything user-facing Yep.
- ABS 4mo agolooks to me like the docs don't give a feature-parity table, but they do draw the "role" lines once you read across them: - Core ML narrows to classic, non-neural ML (its own docs now point you there for "decision trees or tabular feature engineering") - Core AI takes neural nets and transformers (the new .aimodel format, the new profiler) - MLX stays the separate bring-your-own-weights track (its WWDC sessions draw no line back to Core AI at all) coreai-opt is the successor to coremltools on the optimization side.